Johnyt101
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks for the correction, misunderstood what part of the constitution was being discussed.
Thanks for the correction, misunderstood what part of the constitution was being discussed.
Gunslinger wrote:OK, finally, you see now that suits against the government generally proceed against a named official of the government, a legal fiction around the doctrine of sovereign immunity, in order to reach the state itself.The VA official, op cit,is being sued, ex officio as an agent of the US government. It will be defended by the Justice Department, not his private lawyer. Suits against the US government are virtually always against an official of it acting in official capacity. Let's not muddy the water. If a suit against an official is won, who pays? The US Treasury.
That is the point of Lonnie's proposed suit - to sue the official who denies his carry permit application in order to facially attack the unconstitutional state statute.
Actually, "he" will be sued in his personal and official capacity if Lonnie brings the action - the state comes in as a legal fiction around soverign immunity. "Standing" is not a doctrine applicable to Defendants, only Plaintiffs. The case will not get "tossed," maybe what you meant was "dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? Probably not as it is clear that states may not discriminate against citizens of other states when applying for licenses (e.g., bar licenses), making state FOIA requests, see Lee v. Minner (3d. Cir. 2006), etc., unless compelling reasons are present. This is why a similar suit is proceeding right now in federal court in Georgia right now spearheaded by Georigia Carry.org.Mike wrote:Gunslinger wrote:OK, finally, you see now that suits against the government generally proceed against a named official of the government, a legal fiction around the doctrine of sovereign immunity, in order to reach the state itself.The VA official, op cit,is being sued, ex officio as an agent of the US government. It will be defended by the Justice Department, not his private lawyer. Suits against the US government are virtually always against an official of it acting in official capacity. Let's not muddy the water. If a suit against an official is won, who pays? The US Treasury.
That is the point of Lonnie's proposed suit - to sue the official who denies his carry permit application in order to facially attack the unconstitutional state statute.
There is nothing to "finally" see. You keep missing the point: the US or any state government can be sued, has been and will be again. The lead agency head is generally named. E.g., the head of the VA, or Treasury or whatever, but he is not being sued. He is named as a stand in against the respondent: the US government. If the suit is won, who pays? Not him, but the US Treasury. A county sheriff has no standing to be named in a suit against state law, any more than a county Dogcatcher. I've never said a person can't be named in the complaint; simply that the ultimate respondent is the state/country.
The statute is fully constitutional, fully within residual powers,and the case will be tossed. Or maybe you can start a collection to sue the state of ND because they don't accept your VA fishing license. That makes an equal amount of sense.
What on earth are you talking about? Standing is a doctrine to implement Article III case or controversy limits on the jurisdiction ofcourtsand is applicable only to Plaintiffs, not Defendants."Standing" applies to respondants as well as plaintiffs. You can't sue the 'wrong' person and if you do the case is dismissed in limine as any evidence brought would be immaterial to the respondant and therefore excluded.
I'm sorry that I haven't responded to this in so long. Here's the deal with the situation:Anything happening with this?